5 ms·
First read of this pissed me off, but subsequent reads gave a much different opinion. Do yourself a favor and read this, a few times, and take a moment to actu
by ai_critic 3mo ago
First read of this pissed me off, but subsequent reads gave a much different opinion.
Do yourself a favor and read this, a few times, and take a moment to actually try and see what the author's getting at.
- delusional 3mo agoAnd please remember that Poul-Henning is an old-hat and well respected in the field, he's also not a product of American culture. Consider that he might have some useful insight that covers some blindspots your particular culture might not.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- bothers 3mo agoThe relevant field is politics, not CS.
- ball_of_lint 3mo agoOh it's so nuanced and hard to parse that he's arguing for compromise. The trouble is, compromise isn't really a tenable option with encryption. Either you make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only, or people will have access to easy encrypted messaging. There's really no middle ground, because where the smallest weakening of encryption affects everyone's privacy, only outlawing encryption completely will get it out of the hands of criminals. The cat's out of the bag. Author here and in earlier writing seems to make the argument that a little compromise would make the courts less unhappy, but I think that's misattributing motivation. These laws actually are originated by big tech, who think they will be shielded from liability and make more money off of selling your data. https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings
- sfn42 3mo ago> make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only That would outlaw programming. It's just not feasible at all, anyone with any kind of tech literacy understands that encryption is here to stay. It's also necessary for the web to function at all for the things we use it for, such as banking. There is no way to prevent people from communicating in secret. Even if they did strictly control digital communication people would just communicate some other way.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- intended 3mo agoI don’t think the author is arguing for compromise though? I think the author would love to see more enlightened policy, but he doesn’t believe it’s going to happen. Hence the closer: “ Please make my predictions come out wrong.“ Also, these laws don’t simply originate from big tech. That particularly OSINT study was done by someone who wrote their own interpretation of the data points they uncovered, to create a narrative that was comforting to them. Big tech has been aware that a reckoning was coming, because they and safety advocates have been fighting for years now. The fact that there was no actual teeth or ability to enforce e regulation, and that harms were evolving beyond reason and imagination was general knowledge. Meta is lobbying to influence the shape of the manacles they know are coming.
- dwedge 3mo agoI struggle with this because the author is lumping FOSS and "tech bros" together as taking the blame for what a handful of large corporations have done, and thinks that our punishment is what those large corps are lobbying for. It seems like an argument that this is a necessary evil to protect the kids - despite admitting that this is not the real reason for the laws - and then says that those of us who care about privacy are either very rare or "mythical".
- bothers 3mo ago>I struggle with this because the author is lumping FOSS and "tech bros" together This is on purpose. This is the intent.
- forgetfreeman 3mo agoIndividuals who genuinely care about privacy are absolutely mythical in the tech industry. If they were commonplace Google would find themselves under continuous seige by a combination of protestors and bizarrely well-funded FOSS projects aimed at every business niche they inhabit. Doubly true for Meta. Bitching online about proposed legislation while private industry maintains exquisitely detailed records of every aspect of your existence is at best performative.
- dwedge 3mo agoYou don't get to come here and tell other people what is and isn't important to them.
- forgetfreeman 3mo agoYou're right, nor am I attempting to. I'm merely pointing out the kazoo-music-and-a-propeller-beanie slapstick levels of comedy that manifest when the tech industry writ large attempts to argue for online privacy with a straight face.
- jubilanti 3mo agoI detest this writing style, where you assert arguments you don't actually believe in and know are in bad faith, in that sniveling "prove me wrong" tone, to provoke some kind of reaction. Well, mission accomplished, reaction provoked. I'm not going to read this multiple times. I'm going to fire off this comment and remove it from my brain forever.